Daniel Pipes: Region not ripe for democracy

The Australian ^ | 1/30/2006 | Daniel Pipes

[wouldntbprudent]

I think all thinking persons have had to confront these terrible options, somewhere deep in their hearts.

The only solace is that indeed this path, wherever it leads, is not solely of man's choosing or fallibility. It is a journey integral to the inexorable destiny of mankind, determined by mankind's creator.

[wouldntbprudent]

Despite the inherent instability and insecurity we feel now, this experience is the product of social and political genius! The free world has offered Palestinians the opportunity to accept or reject peace. This is historic because without their tacit rejection of peace it would be unethical to slaughter them in WWII fashion, in my opinion. What is being done for Palestinians today was not plausible for the Axis powers of WWII. The logic behind democratization is sound whether democracy prevents this looming war or not. Those who made the free and fair elections in Palestine possible are heroes of the highest order. It is right that democracy be pursued by us for our enemies because we know democracy has the potential to mitigate social chaos and prevent the war that looms. Just because the potential of democracy may not be realized in this case does not make democratization efforts wrong. If Hamas’s initial condition is that it will not recognize its neighbor and our ally Israel as a legitimate country with whom it will deal diplomatically and peacefully, then war is in Hamas’s future. It will be an historic war. It will be a war that spreads to those nations who come to defend Hamas. It will be a war that serves as a lesson to future generations. It will be a war Hamas and their electorate will lose spectacularly. After the war there will be a new set of initial conditions for the nations that lose. Those initial conditions will most likely be the conditions enjoyed by Germany and Japan after World War II. God help our enemies if that’s what they are asking for.

humint, what you said bears repeating. I've been saying much the same, you said it better.

The Hamas state is now in a position to be destroyed if it threatens other sovereign nations. 37 posted on 01/29/2006 8:52:36 PM PST by humint

[wouldntbprudent]

oops - sorry for the formatting errors -- the above post was an excerpt from humint's post, with a short comment by yours truly following

again, apologies

[Dark Skies]

We are currently on a journey - not one of our own choosing - that will lead to but one end: genocide, on a scale heretofore unthinkable. A bloodbath that will make The Holocaust and World War II resemble a pajama party by comparison.

Thx, Fishrrman, for the eloquent and well thought-out post. I agree with every word!

This is one war we, humankind, and the very earth itself cannot afford to lose.

[Dark Skies]

Excellent and not too complicated (though I read it carefully and slowly). My grad major was econometrics/operations research...so I see the parallels you are drawing. Same might be said for islam as a whole (it is antagonistic to the world system).

While war might be avoidable with Hamas if they make the right choices, I suggest that war with islam proper is unavoidable.

[Wurlitzer]

"* Defeat radical Islam: Only when Muslims see that this is a route doomed to failure will they be open to alternatives."

False premise! Keep saying radical Is-Slime enough and people will start to believe it. Mudslime's 40 years of silence regarding terrorism tells most intellegent people that Is-Slime is the problem and "radical" is only used by mudslime apologists.

Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

[Dark Skies]

Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

lol...so that's why my pig is so darned cranky!

[USF]

Food for thought... as DS mentions going back to the drawing board.

As you know, I've been warning about the dangers of democracy and its compatibility in the islamic world since the beginning, as I've witnessed its use (abuse) as a tool to bring in sharia first hand. One would be a fool not to consider the motives of islamic groups and not to understand the ideology of both islam and those influenced by the godfathers of the recent islamic resurgence - the Sayyid Qutbs and Abdullah Azzams and all other islamic purist groups (the Ikhwan, ie global Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoots such as Al Qaeda and Hamas is one group at the top of my list) being influenced by Ibn Taymiyas call for a return to pure islam as practiced and preached by mohammad himself.

On multiple occasions, they have shown their willingness to use the democratic process as tool to undermine and destroy the very institutions which may bring them into power by ultimately imposing islamic rule and sharia which is a fundamental cornerstone of islam. Now that we have that out in the open, yet again, lets move on and consider solutions.

I believe (I may be wrong) it was Thomas Friedman who wrote an article about about the ongoing conflict or civil war in the islamic world between those that lean towards more secular forms of society, and the "true believers" who advocate a return to islamic basics. I believe he mentioned something along the lines of pushing for democracy in saudi arabia, not because he thought it would bring in rulers who were more friendly to the west, but the opposite, because it would bring in a more extreme theocracy, which may repulse the growing youth segment of their population in the hopes they may come to their senses, along the lines of the Iranians who have grown up to reject the rule by their mullahs.

Now, I differ with Friedman some of his basic premises about islam, but thats not what I wanted to bring up, it's his (if he was indeed the author I'm thinking of) "other" option here.

Lets also put aside possible holes in this argument which appears to follow a premise of "all other variables remaining equal" and the possibility of free and fair elections producing a theocracy which effectively becomes a terrorist state who may seek to acquire biological and chemical weapons (why spend years warning the kuffar by building nuclear infrastructure first) and consider what next step of the game plan is.

What if, for example in the case of the Palestinian elections, it was Sharons intention all along to let the world see exactly what Palestinians stand for and let paint themselves into a corner. In many ways, the Palestinian case differs from the above Saudi example because of their economic reliance on Israel, and they are much more vulnerable to the overwhelming power of the IDF and the freezing of international funds. We now have a situation where the enemy can be laid seize to, starved into submission, and those who support or voted for them can see exactly how and why their ideology will fail to produce the mythical islamic Shangri La they had hoped for.

The bigger question is, is this effect of bringing democracy elsewhere in the islamic world ethically acceptable as a two step solution as opposed to an end unto itself? If free and fair elections were held in Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Algeria etc, we know self declared "true believers" would benefit from it.

So do we take gamble and let muslims go ahead and use democracy or free and fair elections to feed themselves to the lions, so to speak, and have us all suffer the likely consequences so muslims may eventually learn the hard way that their lions (mullahs/imams) bite, maul and kill, and stop seeing islam thru rose tinted glasses and come around to understanding the realities of islamic rule like the long suffering Iranians and Afghanis because it ends up being a necessary process in both their collective societys and their individual ideological evolution?

Should we step back and return to continuing to prop up less than perfect regimes, our "friends" the "true believers" deem apostates and in league with the kuffar, turning a blind eye to the "imperfections" of the Mahathirs, Suhartos, Musharrafs and Mubaraks of the world because they are the lesser of two evils, going go back to the cold war "he may be a S.O.B, but he's our S.O.B." way of thinking that has caused us problems in the past?

Or do we face the harsh facts about islam and its founder, placing it firmly in the faces of both mulsim and our own "unenlightened" so we may honestly confront and discredit the ideology and many of its fundamental cornerstones first in the hopes we may eventually pave the way to another long term solution where they don't hang themselves and threaten to take us down with them in the process?

[Fred Nerks]

What if, for example in the case of the Palestinian elections, it was Sharons intention all along to let the world see exactly what Palestinians stand for and let paint themselves into a corner.

---

It's started. Threats and bluster from Hamas. A CYA tactic from a terrorist group that has never governed, has no idea how to provide services and probably does not intend to. If Gaza is a cesspool now, wait a few months. There are arabs who lived under the PA that are in for a terrible shock. Young women, dressed in modern clothes, wearing make-up are sending each other text-messages on cellphones making jokes about sharia law - how many lashes for not covering your hair?

It hasn't hit them yet. The enforcers are yet to come. Remember the Taliban? That's what they voted for. Public executions like in Iran. Welcome to the real islam. Sharia for everyone.

[USF]

*seize = siege (among other things...)

[USF]

how many lashes for not covering your hair?

Answer: None will be needed.

The gangs of rapists will take care of that.

"She is partly to be blamed as the rapist will be considered as being seduced by her revealing form and shape," of course.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

Spreading representative democracy is ALWAYS a GOOD thing:

When people elect terrorist leaders, as opposed to having a terrorist dictator foisted upon them, then you can KILL EVERYBODY with a clear conscience.

PA and Iraq take notice.

[Fred Nerks]

If a female was raped due to her not maintaining the laws of Hijaab, she is
partly to be blamed as the rapist will be considered as being seduced by her
revealing form and shape. She should make Tawbah (sincerely repent) by also
adhering to the laws of Hijaab.

and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best

Mufti Ebrahim Desai
FATWA DEPT.


I can imagine how a large portion of the free time of a muslim male (living on welfare because it's demeaning to go to work) might be spent looking for women to punish for breaking the laws of sharia...being a devout muslim can be sooooooooooo rewarding!

There's not an animal on earth that behaves like they do. PIGS are smarter and cleaner!

[Proud Infidel]

Check your mail kufr. ;-)

[sgtyork]

Disturbing parallels between post-restoration Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany

As Japan entered the twentieth century, we can see the following disturbing features of its government:

Japan possessed only the appearance of being a democracy;

ordinary Japanese people had no significant control over the actions of their government; advisers to the emperor within the power elite were able to rule Japan through the emperor; imperial governments were heavily influenced by militarists eager to pursue aggressive foreign policies; and censorship of the media ensured that most Japanese were only exposed to the imperial government's views on domestic and foreign issues.


This pattern of government was superimposed on a society conditioned over centuries to militarism, authoritarian rule, and obedience to authority. The national religion Shinto held that the emperor was divine, that Japan was blessed by the gods, and that Japan had a divine mission to extend its rule and enlightenment to less fortunate races. The education system was designed to condition students to blind loyalty to the emperor, obedience to his will, extreme patriotism, and support for Japan's military aggression.

http://www.users.bigpond.com/battleforaustralia/foundationJapmilaggro/FacadeofDemocracy.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No - your are wrong. Which is very common. Keep trying!!!!!

[billbears]

No - your are wrong. Which is very common. Keep trying!!!!!

LOL, tell that to the United States government. That's the website I used. You see when debating a point, one tends to use valid sources, not someone's personal page that has a definitive slant to it. I would be more than happy to provide other valid sources if you wish.

[sgtyork]

While I would normally accept a governmental source, it seems to me that the State Department has a motive of not highlighting the unpleasant aspects of a Japanese system of government that led to WWII. The quote you provided hints of this. Why would our government emphasize the militarism of your former enemy after the remarkable change that we imposed? So this time I think that this is not a does not provide an unquestionable foundation for your arguement.

http://www.microworks.net/pacific/road_to_war/japan_1853-1941.htm

The period between 1920 and 1941 was the one with the most democratic type of government until after WWII, and yet it had severe flaws. It has been characterized as a “government by assassination”, so often were Prime Ministers, even lower ministers, the targets and victims of terrorist attacks that, instead of waiting for the next elections, chose to change the government in its own way.
Neither parliament nor government, to an extend not even the Emperor, controlled the military. On the contrary, it was the military that controlled the civilian government. The Japanese constitution, more to the point several later amendments, explicitly required the ministers of the Navy and Army, respectively, to be serving officers of their services. By refusing to nominate a minister, either service could decline to accept an elected government. By removing its minister, either service could topple an existing government. It was thanks to the leadership of a few individuals that survived as Prime Ministers that any form of government could be executed without too large interference by the armed services.

We often hear that Iran is a great democracy - recently from Bill Clinon. Do you think that because they have had elections that we should consider them a democracy?

[gogeo]

Exactly. If they elected the government that's threatening us we need not feel guilt about kicking their @sses.

[Proud Infidel]

Or do we face the harsh facts about islam and its founder...

Yes, because I do not like choosing between submission or death.